, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


ROBERT  ERNEST  COWAN 


THE 

Professional  Criminals 

OF  SAN   FRANCISCO 


by  J.  R.  COLLINS 


Published  by  the  Author 


San  Francisco,  1914. 


TABLE     OFCONTENTS 


PAGE 
Professional  Criminals  of  San  Francisco 

by  J.  R.  COLLINS 3 

Mrs.  Margaret  West,  Angel  or  Devil 

From  Bulletin  of  Aug.  12-13 19 


Courts,  Judges  and  Lawyers 
by  JOHN  D.  BARRY, 

From  Bulletin  of  Aug.  11-14 22 


293186 


Dedicated  to  those  who  love  justice  and  liberty, 
hate  crime  and  poverty,  who  have  a  vision  of 
a  brighter  future  for  all  mankind,  and  who  will 
do  away  with  the  necessity  for  courts,  prisons 
and  crime. 


The  Professional  Criminals 
of  San  Francisco 


In  November,  1910,  I  loaned  Mrs.  W.  $50 
for  30  days,  without  interest.  I  knew  Mrs.  W. 
for  over  a  year  before  she  ever  asked  for  a 
favor;  she  told  me  she  would  give  me  a  chattel 
mortgage  on  a  piano  that  she  owned  and  pay 
me  interest,  she  just  had  to  have  some  money 
to  pay  taxes  on  property  located  at  3757  Six- 
teenth street.  She  was  short  of  money,  as  she 
had  to  make  some  payments  on  some  Los 
Angeles  property.  I  asked  her  how  it  was  she 
didn't  borrow  the  money  downtown.  She  said 
she  would  have  to  pay  such  an  enormous  in- 
terest that  she  would  rather  borrow  of  some 
friend  who  would  be  satisfied  with  a  reasonable 
interest.  The  reason  I  happened  to  have  ?50 
was  that  I  had  saved  it  up  to  pay  my  annual 
premium  on  my  life  insurance.  We  had  two 
or  three  talks  about  the  loan  before  I  decided 
to  take  the  risk.  When  I  went  up  to  Mrs.  W.'s 
house  to  look  at  the  piano  I  found  an  up-to-date 
bungalow,  also  a  cottage  in  the  rear  of  the 
house  at  3757  Sixteenth  street,  renting  for  $16 
a  month. 


Inside  the  house  we  found  furniture,  fine 
cut  glass,  telephone,  aviary  in  rear  of  house, 
consisting  of  about  30  tropical  birds — in  fact 
everything  in  apple-pie  order.  Mrs.  W.  also 
stated  at  this  time  that  she  had  three  daugh- 
ters and  a  husband,  all  regularly  employed. 
That  looked  pretty  good  to  me.  To  show  you 
that  my  heart  is  in  the  right  place,  I  made  the 
proposition  to  Mrs.  W.  that  it  wouldn't  be 
necessary  to  go  to  the  expense  of  making  out 
a  mortgage  for  so  short  a  time;  but  when  it 
came  to  pay,  Mrs.  W.  didn't  pay  and  I  was 
forced  to  borrow  money  to  pay  on  my  insur- 
ance. By  keeping  right  after  her  three  or  four 
times  a  week,  she  finally  paid  $10  in  February, 
1911.  That  was  the  first  and  only  money  that 
I  have  received  of  the  $50  I  loaned.  I  finally 
asked  Mrs.  W.  if  she  would  still  give  me  a 
mortgage  on  the  piano.  She  said  she  would. 
Mrs.  W.  agreed  to  go  downtown  and  have  the 
mortgage  fixed  up  during  the  noon  hour.  While 
driving  a  delivery  wagon  I  had  lunch  four 
times  a  week  near  her  house.  She  kept  put- 
ting me  off,  playing  for  more  time.  It  dragged 
along  until  about  the  middle  of  April;  I  never 
could  find  Mrs.  W.  at  home;  she  was  either 
out  or  so  sick  that  she  couldn't  see  me,  so  I 
decided  to  play  th  epart  of  a  detective.  One 
bright  morning  I  telephoned  to  the  lady,  left 
her  under  the  impression  that  I  was  working, 
and  she  promised  to  meet  me  at  noontime  and 
fix  up  the  mortgage  without  fail.  When  I  rang 
the  door  bell  at  3737  Sixteenth  street  about 
five  minutes  after  I  hung  up  the  receiver  two 
blocks  away,  Mrs.  W.  looked  like  30  cents.  I 
informed  the  lady  that  I  had  come  to  stay  all 
day  or  a  week  if  it  needs  be,  or  until  such  time 


as   she   signed   up.     We  went  downtown   and 
while  we  were  waiting  for  a  notary  to  show 
up  in  a  real  estate  office  she  excused  herself 
and  said  she  would  have  to  go  to  the  toilet. 
"I'll  go  along  with  you,"  I  volunteered.    If  there 
had  been  a  hole  in  that  toilet,  either  in  the 
sewer  or  the  skylight,  large  enough  for  Mrs. 
W.  to  have  crowded  through,  I  wouldn't  have 
had  a  mortgage  on  that  piano  yet.     Of  course 
the  $40  coming  would  be  paid  in  two  or  three 
days.    That  was  the  same  old  story  over  and 
over  again.     Up  to  this  time  I  had  never  met 
Mr.  W.     I  had  a  curiosity  to  see  the  husband 
of  this  woman  that  I  had  found  by  this  time  to 
be  the  biggest  liar  I  had  ever  met — and  mind 
you  I  am  53  years  old,  met  lots  of  them.     I 
asked  Mrs.  W.  over  the  phone  what  time  her 
husband  got  home  at  night  time.    She  informed 
me  that  it  wouldn't  do  a  bit  of  good  to  see  him 
for  she  did  all  the  business.     I  want  to  state 
right  here  that's  the  only  time  Mrs.  W.  told 
me  the  truth.     The  Sunday  morning  following 
this  phone  conversation  I  called  at  3737  Six- 
teenth street  and  found  Mr.  W.  at  home.     He 
answered  the  bell.    I  introduced  myself  to  the 
gentleman  and  told  him  my  trouble.    He  called 
his  lady  love  to  the  door  and  asked  her  if  she 
had  borrowed  any  money  from  me.    She  stated 
that   she   had.     She   also   said   she  had   made 
arrangements  to  pay  me  the  following  Tuesday 
with   interest.     I   wanted   to   continue   talking 
about  the  case,  but  he  told  me  it  was  Sunday 
morning  and  that  I  would  get  my  money  all 
right,  but  he  did  not  care  to  talk  any  more 
about  it,   and   slammed  the  door  in  my  face. 
Tuesday  came  and  no  money.    The  next  day  I 
went  up  at  noontime  to  see  if  Mrs.  W.  was  in. 


The  curtains  were  tightly  drawn  and  appar- 
ently nobody  at  home,  but  I  had  found  by  this 
time  that  Mrs.  W.  was  at  home  lots  of  times, 
but  never  answered  any  bells.  At  this  time 
there  was  a  Japanese  waiting  on  the  porch, 
asked  him  his  trouble,  and  he  said  he  had 
washed  windows,  worked  two  days,  couldn't 
get  pay.  There  is  a  poor  man  who  lives  in  the 
Mission,  has  a  large  family.  His  boy  worked 
for  Mrs.  W.  three  days.  She  never  paid  him 
a  cent.  Mrs.  W.  borrowed  $25  of  a  little  Mexi- 
can by  the  name  of  R.  D.  Micotti  on  the 
strength  of  owning  this  same  piano  that  : 
loaned  her  money  on.  There  isn't  a  store  of 
any  description  in  the  neighborhood  of  Six- 
teenth and  Market  that  Mrs.  W.  hasn't  got  the 
best  of  or  tried  to. 

The  mortgage  that  I  hold  upon  piano  No. 
44914  was- recorded  on  April  17,  1911,  book  45, 
page  105;  the  piano  belongs  to  a  music  store 
located  at  51  Grant  avenue.  The  claim  was  to 
be  paid  in  30  days,  the  17th  of  May.  No  money 
— with  four  or  five  members  of  the  family  work- 
ing all  the  time.  When  the  17th  of  May  came 
around,  of  course  Mrs.  W.  wanted  three  or  four 
more  days.  I  waited  two  or  three  days  and 
got  busy.  I  supposed  all  I  would  have  to  do 
would  be  to  tell  the  sheriff  my  troubles  and 
he  would  sell  the  piano  and  fix  it  all  up. 
was  told  at  the  sheriff's  office  that  I  would 
have  to  get  a  lawyer;  I  left  the  sheriff's  office 
so  mad  that  I  could  have  bitten  myself.  I 
went  over  on  Market  street  and  the  first  law- 
yer's name  I  happened  to  see  was  F.  V.  Meyers, 
third  floor  Grant  building.  After  I  told  Mr. 
Meyers  my  trouble  he  immediately  took  down 
the  receiver  and  rang  up  51  Grant  avenue. 


They  informed  him  that  Mrs.  W.  was  away 
behind  in  her  payments  and  had  paid  very 
little  on  the  instrument.  How  did  Mr.  Meyers 
know  that  51  Grant  avenue  owned  or  had 
partly  sold  this  particular  piano  No.  44944? 
Here  was  positive  evidence  that  a  third  party 
had  loaned  money  on  this  piano.  She  evidently 
kept  the  piano  for  the  sole  purpose  of  borrow- 
ing money  on  it.  Mr.  Meyers  said  the  only 
thing  we  could  do  would  be  to  have  her  ar- 
rested for  obtaining  money  under  false  pre- 
tenses. We  went  to  the  bond  and  warrant 
clerk's  office,  and  after  being  asked  about  fifty 
questions  by  Mr.  Rock,  and  after  he  had  satis- 
fied himself  that  Mr.  Meyers  and  I  were  within 
the  bounds  of  the  law,  he  wrote  Mrs.  W.  a 
note  asking  her  to  appear  at  64  Eddy  street 
and  tell  why  she  shouldn't  be  arrested  for 
borrowing  money  on  property  that  did  not 
belong  to  her.  On  the  advice  of  Mr.  Meyers  I 
delivered  that  note  personally  to  Mrs.  W.  so 
she  couldn't  say  she  didn't  read  it.  Mr.  Meyers 
knew  that  she  handled  the  truth  carelessly,  but 
she  showed  up  next  morning  at  64  Eddy  street, 
put  up  a  pitiful  tale,  went  from  there  to  the 
Bulletin  office  and  was  crying  around  there, 
telling  hard-luck  stories,  every  word  a  lie.  The 
Bulletin  sent  her  to  Hickey  &  Culbertson,  law- 
yers in  the  Phelan  building.  She  showed  these 
lawyers  $10  and  told  them  if  they  would  inter- 
cede in  her  behalf  she  would  pay  $10  a  month 
until  such  time  as  the  debt  was  paid.  Mr. 
Hickey  rang  up  the  bond  and  warrant  clerk's 
office.  Mr.  Rock  referred  him  to  us.  Mr. 
Meyers  and  I  had  a  talk  with  them  about  the 
proposition  and  decided  to  give  her  a  chance 
to  pay  $10  the  1st  of  each  month.  This  hap- 


pened  the  1st  of  June.  The  1st  of  July  came 
around  and  no  money,  and  the  7th  of  July  and 
no  money.  I  rang  up  Mr.  Meyers  and  found 
that  he  is  visiting  in  Los  Angeles.  When 
he  returned  we  took  the  case  up  again,  about 
the  1st  of  August — and  still  no  money.  Mr. 
Meyers  and  I  made  another  trip  to  64  Eddy 
street,  and  this  time  got  a  warrant  for  Mrs. 
W.  She  was  arrested  on  Thursday,  August 
3rd,  and  appeared  in  Judge  Shortall's  court 
August  4th.  This  was  kept  up  for  four  con- 
secutive weeks,  when  the  case  was  thrown  out 
of  court  on  September  2nd.  The  first  time, 
which  was  on  August  4th,  her  lawyer,  Mr.  F. 
W.  Sawyer,  came  to  me  in  the  courtroom  and 
asked  me  to  consent  to  have  the  case  put  over 
another  week.  He  said  he  could  get  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  case  whether  I  agreed  to  it  or 
not.  He  asked  me  how  much  money  was  still 
coming  to  me.  Through  a  mistake  I  told  him 
$40,  but  I  should  have  told  him  $43.  This  $3 
has  to  be  explained  here.  The  day  I  forced 
Mrs.  W.  to  give  me  a  mortgage  that  $3  record- 
ing fee  Mrs.  W.  agreed  to  pay  me  in  addition 
to  $10  for  the  trouble  she  had  put  me  to.  My 
lawyer  wasn't  in  court,  as  I  had  failed  to 
notify  him.  Mr.  Sawyer  had  the  case  put  over 
for  a  week,  with  the  understanding  that  she 
would  get  the  money  in  the  meantime.  We 
were  a  second  time  in  court  on  the  llth  of 
August.  My  lawyer  sent  a  boy  who  was  study- 
ing law  under  him  to  represent  his  end  of  the 
case.  I  had  found  out  by  this  time  that  I  was 
being  done  out  of  $3.  In  addition  to  this,  Mr. 
Sawyer  was  coaching  me  what  to  tell  the 
judge  if  he  should  make  a  kick  about  using  the 
police  department  for  a  collection  agency.  For 


the  first  time  it  appeared  to  me  that  I  was 
receiving  a  paltry  sum  of  money  to  turn  one 
of  the  worst  criminals  in  San  Francisco  loose; 
I  told  Mr.  Sawyer  that  I  couldn't  think  of 
being  used  in  that  way.  When  the  case  was 
called  the  judge  put  up  a  howl  about  another 
continuance.  I  told  the  judge  that  there  were 
some  things  had  come  up  in  the  case  that  I 
would  have  to  see  my  lawyer  about;  after  a 
little  rough-house  between  my  representative 
from  Mr.  Meyers  and  the  judge  it  went  over 
for  another  week,  Saturday,  the  19th.  I  ap- 
peared this  time  to  plead  my  own  case.  Sev- 
eral cases  were  disposed  of  before  they  came 
to  mine,  and  just  before  my  case  was  called 
Mr.  Sawyer,  Mr.  Oppenheim,  the  District  At- 
torney's representative,  and  the  Hon.  Edward 
Shortall  put  their  heads  together  and  held  a 
three-cornered  whispered  conversation  and  de- 
cided they  would  have  some  fun  with  me.  I 
will  have  to  guess  here  what  Sawyer  told  Judge 
Shortall  and  Oppenheim.  I  took  the  stand  and 
the  first  question  Shortall  asked  me  was  if  I 
believed  in  God.  "Why,"  I  said,  "Judge,  that's 
got  nothing  to  do  with  this  case."  He  ad- 
mitted that  it  hadn't,  but,  he  says,  "Do  you 
believe  in  God?"  I  answered,  "Certainly  not." 
The  judge  then  asked  me  a  few  questions  about 
the  loan  and  told  me  I  would  have  to  get  some 
witnesses  to  prove  that  Mrs.  W.  didn't  own 
the  piano.  Think  of  it,  have  to  prove  some- 
thing that  the  judge  already  knew.  If  Mrs.  W. 
had  owned  the  piano  Mr.  Meyers  and  I  would 
have  done  business  with  the  sheriff;  we  would 
not  have  been  in  the  police  court.  What  a 
farce  those  police  courts  are,  anyhow! 


10 

I  got  busy  and  had  three  witnesses  sub- 
poenaed, and  appeared  in  court  on  the  26th  of 
August,  1911,  this  being  the  fourth  time  in 
court,  and,  bless  your  sweet  life,  Shortall  never 
showed  up.  And  there  were  three  or  four 
cases  that  had  to  wait  until  some  other  police 
judge  could  come  in  and  set  another  time  for 
a  hearing  before  Shortall.  When  Judge  Deasy 
came  in  to  put  the  cases  over  for  another  week 
I  asked  the  judge  if  I  would  have  to  have 
these  three  witnesses  re-subpoenaed  to  appear 
in  court  on  September  3rd.  He  said  I  certainly 
would.  Now,  Mr.  Reader,  I  want  you  to  look 
at  the  trouble  and  expense  that  I  and  the 
police  department  were  put  to,  and  no  results. 
September  3rd  I  was  in  court  with  my  wit- 
nesses. Shortall,  seeing  Mr.  Meyers,  asked 
him  if  he  had  a  case  in  court.  Mr.  Meyers 
stated  that  he  was  there  as  a  witness  in  the 
Collins  &  West  case.  The  judge  told  him  he 
could  go,  that  he  would  dismiss  the  case  when 
it  was  called.  He  asked  me  if  I  was  ready  to 
receive  the  $40;  I  told  him  I  was  not.  He 
turned  to  Mrs.  West  and  said:  "Mrs.  West, 
you  are  on  the  docket  two  times  for  the  same 
offense.  How  did  you  do  it?"  and  smiled.  Mrs. 
W.  smiled  in  return  and  said  she  didn't  know, 
she  just  did  it.  Judge  Shortall  dismissed  the 
case. 

The  docket  sheets  of  September  3,  1911,  will 
show  that  William  Johnson  had  Mrs.  West 
arrested  sometime  during  this  period  of  five 
weeks,  that  the  case  was  pending  in  Shortall's 
court;  whether  she  paid  him  in  full  or  not  I 
don't  know.  A  lady  friend  of  mine  was  with 
me  on  September  3rd,  and  we  went  direct  from 
the  court  to  the  Daily  News  office  on  Ninth 


11 

street  and  had  a  talk  with  the  managing  editor. 
Ke  agreed  to  ask  Shortall  why  he  dismissed 
the  case.  I  waited  four  or  five  days — nothing 
doing.  I  rang  the  editor  up  and  asked  him 
about  the  agreement  between  him  and  me. 
Oh.  he  said,  anybody  could  ask  Shortall  a 
question.  What  to  do  next  I  didn't  know.  My 
friend  advised  me  to  see  the  Grand  Jury  and 
if  the  Grand  Jury  would  not  do  anything  for 
nie  I  was  at  the  end  of  the  string,  it  being  the 
court  of  last  resort.  The  Grand  Jury  met  at 
the  Kewes  building  at  this  time.  I  called  one 
evening  and  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  J.  Plover,  the 
secretary,  and  he  said  they  would  take  the 
case  under  advisement  and  see  what  could  be 
done.  They  sent  the  corporal  of  the  Grand 
Jury  to  see  me,  a  very  nice,  agreeable  young 
fellow,  a  good  conversationalist.  Say,  gentle 
reader,  did  you  ever  stop  to  think  that  these 
Grand  Juries  cost  us  well?  Mr.  Plover  prom- 
ised to  let  me  know  by  letter  how  they  pro- 
gressed with  the  case.  I  waited  and  waited, 
and  then  waited  some  more — it  was  apparently 
a  game  of  freeze-out.  I  got  tired,  disgusted 
and  heartsore  waiting  on  justice.  I  called  on 
Mr.  Plover  again.  He  told  me  he  had  looked 
over  the  court  record  and  found  everything 
just  as  I  had  stated,  that  he  was  very  sorry, 
but  the  Grand  Jury  would  do  nothing  in  the 
case.  Why  wouldn't  the  Grand  Jury  do  any- 
thing in  the  case? 

Some  of  these  jurymen  went  to  school  with 
Shortall,  each  and  every  one  of  them  are  con- 
servatives, their  religion,  their  politics  and 
their  God  are  different  from  mine — do  you 
blame  them?  I  don't  know  what's  to  be  done 
now.  Mr.  Plover  stated  that  Oppenheim  had 


12 

done  wrong,  and  if  I  would  see  Mr.  Berry  or 
Mr.  Cotton  of  the  District  Attorney's  office  he 
thought  they  might  do  something  with  the 
case.  I  had  several  talks  with  Mr.  Cotton.  He 
stated  that  in  numbers  of  cases  where  the 
judge  had  decided  against  him  he  thought  the 
judge  was  wrong.  "Well,"  I  asked  Cotton,  "did 
the  judge  decide  these  cases  against  you  ac- 
cording to  law?"  "Oh,"  he  says,  "it's  up  to  the 
judge."  Up  to  the  judge  first,  last  and  all  the 
time!  I  concluded  it  was  useless  to  see  Mr. 
Berry.  I  want  to  state  right  here,  since  I  have 
become  acquainted  with  Berry,  it  certainly 
would  have  been  useless.  Looks  pretty  bad, 
don't  it?  Gentle  Reader,  you  mustn't  take  the 
law  into  your  own  hands.  Now,  the  sheriff 
didn't  treat  me  right.  If  he  had,  he  would 
have  sent  me  direct  to  Fickert.  What  do  I 
pay  Fickert  for  if  it  isn't  to  protect  me  from 
such  abominable  criminals  as  Mrs.  W.  and  her 
family?  What  do  I  pay  the  Grand  Jury  for? 
What  do  I  pay  Shortall,  the  dirty  liar,  for? 

Am  I  at  the  end?  Oh,  no.  I'm  no  quitter. 
This  must  have  been  along  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  year  1911.  I  was  awake  some  nights  all 
night,  thinking  what  best  to  do.  Think  of  the 
mental  agony,  dear  reader,  for  these  many 
nights. 

The  Legal  Aid  Society  was  organized  about 
this  time.  Now,  of  all  the  societies  that  ever 
was  organized  in  this  or  any  other  city,  this 
is  the  most  shameful.  F.  J.  Schuhl  and  A.  L. 
Johnson,  both  young  lawyers,  started  in  to 
clean  up  the  town,  and  would  have  cleaned  it 
up.  Johnson  and  Schuhl  really  wanted  to  do 
something.  But  here  are  a  few  names  of  the 
men  and  women  that  applied  for  membership: 


13 

Mrs.  L.  H.  Coffin,  Mrs.  E.  R.  Norwood,  Mrs.  P. 
Pierce,  Mrs.  M.  Gordon,  Mrs.  R.  Steele,  Judge 
C.  W.  Eastin,  O.  L.  Scott.  The  Bar  Associa- 
tion was  represented  by  C.  S.  Wheeler,  C.  A. 
Shootleft  and  D.  O.  Connell.  They  also  wanted 
to  co-operate  with  the  society  in  this  land- 
slide of  human  kindness  towards  poor  people 
who  have  been  wronged  by  such  scoundre'.s 
as  Fickert  and  Shortall,  real  estate  linns,  fra- 
ternal societies,  and  all  the  little  cliques  and 
clubs  that  it  takes  to  constitute  a  criminal  city 
such  as  San  Francisco. 

This  writeup  in  the  Bulletin  from  which  I 
have  copied  these  names,  also  states  that  the 
society  was  in  correspondence  with  a  New 
York  society  of  the  same  name,  which  has 
such  illustrious  personalities  as  Buna  Tumbo, 
Bill  Taft,  A.  Carnegie  and  J.  A.  Schiff.  By  the 
way,  before  I  forget  it,  Shortall  was  one  of  the 
directors.  It  cost  $1  to  join  this  society.  I 
have  a  receipt  for  one  dollar,  and  I  paid  one 
dollar  in  that  nobody  has  receipted  for.  Ask 
Mrs.  Rufus  Steeie  what  became  of  C.  M.  Cus- 
ter's  dollar;  I  gave  Mr.  Custer  his  dollar  back, 
so  it  cost  me  two  dollars.  Dear  Reader,  look 
over  the  above  names.  Do  you  want  to  criti- 
cize Johnson  &  Schuhl?  I  don't.  Look  at  the 
environment — look  at  the  influence  on  them  of 
these  professional  criminals. 

Now,  I  don't  want  something  for  nothing — I 
never  have.  In  a  writeup  that  the  Bulletin 
gave  this  society  it  stated  that  in  addition  to 
helping  poor  people  without  cost,  it  would  see 
that  justice  was  done.  That  looked  good  to 
me.  I  called  at  24  Montgomery  street  and  told 
them  my  troubles.  Mr.  Johnson  and  Mr. 
Schule  thought  I  had  a  very  good  case.  This 


14 

must  have  been  before  Shortall  got  in  as  a 
director.  Anyway,  their  office  was  simply 
swamped  with  these  poor  victims  of  profes- 
sional criminals,  and  they  were  so  busy  with 
these  cases  that  they  couldn't  do  anything  for 
me  just  at  present,  and  they  referred  me  to 
Mr.  Vidal,  an  attorney  in  the  same  building, 
and  assured  me  that  he  would  treat  me  right. 
Mr.  Vidal  and  I  called  at  the  District  Attorney's 
office  and  fixed  it  up  for  a  personal  interview 
with  Mr.  Fickert,  Mr.  Sawyer  and  Mrs.  West. 
Mr.  Fickert  got  cold  feet  and  turned  the  case 
over  to  Mr.  Becsy,  one  of  the  assistant  district 
attorneys.  Vidal,  myself,  Mr.  Sawyer  and  Mrs. 
West  called  at  Mr.  Becsy's  office  in  the  Call 
building,  and  Mrs.  West  agreed  to  pay  $10  a 
month  until  such  time  as  it  was  all  paid.  Mrs. 
West  didn't  pay,  and  Mr.  Becsy  can  never 
explain  why  he  didn't  have  Mrs.  West  arrested 
and  properly  punished.  But  you  mustn't  take 
the  law  in  your  own  hands.  I  had  certainly 
given  the  law  plenty  of  time,  had  employed 
two  lawyers,  spent  all  kinds  of  time  and 
money,  and  no  results.  The  house  at  3757 
Sixteenth  street  stands  up  off  the  ground  about 
three  feet.  I  had  decided  to  put  two  or  three 
gallon  cans  of  gasoline  under  the  house  and 
blow  it  up  some  night.  How  was  I  to  do  this 
without  getting  caught?  I  went  to  a  party 
that  I  thought  would  furnish  me  the  gas. 
told  him  what  I  wanted  to  do  with  it.  He  said 
all  right,  go  to  it,  mum  would  be  the  word 
on  his  part.  I  decided  to  fix  a  candle  and  a 
saturated  oil  string  so  it  would  explode  be- 
tween 12  and  1  at  nighttime.  I  would  light  the 
candle  in  the  early  evening  and  be  at  home,  or 
near  home,  playing  cards  so  it  would  be  easy 


15 

for  me  to  prove  that  I  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  explosion.  On  the  other  hand,  I  had  rea- 
soned that  Mrs.  West  had  victimized  so  many 
people  that  if  she  got  out  alive  she  would  have 
no  idea  who  did  the  job.  About  this  time  I 
read  a  newspaper  item  that  Shortall  was  so- 
journing in  Marin  County.  I  figured  that  when 
the  smoke  had  cleared  away  from  the  West 
mansion  I  would  go  to  Marin  County  and  lay 
for  the  dirty  cur  and  thrash  him  within  an 
inch  of  his  life.  Before  I  did  any  of  this  un- 
pleasant work  I  decided  to  make  one  more 
call  on  the  Legal  Aid  Society,  and  was  in- 
formed that  Mrs.  West  was  in  jail,  was  arrested 
again.  This  stopped  my  little  game  of  smoke 
and  blood  for  the  time  being.  She  was  up 
before  Judge  Lawlor  this  time.  Mrs.  West 
was  in  jail  about  two  months,  and  during  this 
time  she  and  her  victims  met  in  Lawlor's  court 
a  dozen  times  or  more.  In  the  beginning, 
Lawlor  said  he  wanted  all  the  evidence.  But 
when  he  found  out  what  the  Grand  Jury  had 
done  and  the  part  Shortall  had  played,  which 
also  put  Mr.  Fickert  in  bad,  he  didn't  want  all 
the  evidence.  Then  came  all  these  tedious 
hours  of  parts  of  days  and  a  part  of  one  night. 
Think  of  it,  he  held  a  night  session  to  accom- 
modate Mr.  West  because  he  couldn't  attend 
during  the  daytime,  he  would  lose  his  job! 
Mr.  Nichols,  probation  officer,  camped  on  the 
job  all  the  time;  as  Dr.  Aked  said  in  a  recent 
writeup  on  the  courts,  it's  a  pity  that  the 
public  can't  see  some  of  the  letters  and  other 
paraphernalia  that  Mr.  Nichols  has  in  his  pos- 
session in  regard  to  the  number  of  cases  where 
all-round  criminals  have  been  given  their  free- 
dom and  at  this  very  moment  are  taking  ad- 


16 

vantage   of  people   who   do   believe   in   doing 
right 

Just  a  few  facts  now  that  came  out  in  Law- 
lor's  court:  Seventeen  chattel  mortgages  we 
recorded  against  personal  property  that  Mrs. 
West  didn't  own.  Only  five  of  them  were  re- 
leased. Over  $1600  still  standing  against  the 
property,  to  say  nothing  about  hundreds  of 
other  dollars  that  the  lady  got  from  every 
Tom,  Dick  and  Harry.  For  the  benefi 
those  who  don't  know,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
State  pays  part  of  the  salary  of  our  Superior 
Court  judges.  What  percent,  I  don't  know. 
Every  once  in  awhile  the  court  would  state 
that  the  State  had  some  rights,  while  these 
probation  people  were  staying  with  him  night 
and  day;  but  when  he  decided  the  case,  we 
find  that  the  State  has  no  rights.  There  were 
four  or  five  of  the  lady's  victims  that  didn't 
come  over  with  the  probation  side  of  the  case; 
they  still  held  out  for  the  State's  rights,  which 
Lawlor  should  have  supported  by  all  means. 

Look  at  the  Byrne  case  that  the  Bulle 
published.  The  part  that  Lawlor  and  Shortall 
piayed  in  that  case  disqualifies  them  as  judges. 
An  innocent  man  in  San  Quentin  about  to  be 
hanged  on  the  flimsiest  kind  of  circumstantial 
evidence. 

I  signed  an  agreement  to  take  $20  for  the 
$43  that  Mrs.  West  owed  me,  and  when  Nichols 
come  to  pay  me  he  wanted  me  to  pay  for  the 
release  of  the  mortgage.  I  refused  to  do  it, 
and  Mr.  Lawlor  decided  I  wouldn't  get  any- 
thing. I  was  rolled  in  Shortall's  court  for  $ 
and  in  Lawlor's  court  for  $20.  Can  you  beat 
it?  I  say  no,  and  in  no  other  city  in  the  world. 
Following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  names 


17 

and  addresess  of  the  Grand  Jury  that  investi- 
gated the  West  case:     C.  H.  Appel,  2437  Wash- 
ington street;  A.  Hirsch,  2686  Union  street;  J. 
Mulheara,  Union  Square  Hotel;  P.  P.  Troy,  116 
Guerrero    street;    J.    Holland,    1106    street;    J 
Holland,   1106   Pierce;    W.  H.  Ford,   Chismore 
Apartments;  E.  W.  Brown,  9  Fifth  avenue-   S 
Joseph,  2379  Sutter;  O.  J.  Olsen,  3476  Twenty- 
first  street;   E.  C.  Landis,  2494  Filbert  street- 
H.  L.  Morrison,  3894  Clay  street;    R.  L.  Lar- 
zelere  street  St.  Francis  Hotel.     If  this  Grand 
Jury  had  done  their  duty  Lawlor  would  have 
had  missed  the  exquisite  pleasure  of  listening 
to   50,000  words— a  great  deal  of  it  repeated 
testimony.     Why  continue  this?    The  evidence 
was  conclusive  that  the  money  that  Mrs.  West 
robbed  the  citizens  of  the  City  of  San  Fran- 
cisco of  to  the  amount  of  thousands  of  dollars 
was   spent   in    purchasing   real   estate   in   Los 
Angeles.    G.  K.  Chesterton  in  the  Examiner  of 
June  14,  1914,  says  he  thinks  the  judges  are 
the  only  contemptible  things  in  court,  and   I 
agree  with  him.    He  also  says  it  would  do  him 
good  to  shoot  them.     Same  here.    The  damn- 
dest lie  that  ever  was  published  in  any  paper 
you'll  find  in  the  Bulletin  of  August  12,  1912, 
second    page,    column   two,   and    the   Bulletin 
knew  they  were  publishing  a  lie. 


18 

Appendix  A 

This  item  from  the  Bulletin  illustrates  clear- 
ly the  lack  of  judgment  that  characterizes 
some  misspent  sympathy.  Almost  every  im- 
portant statement  in  this  Bulletin  account  is 
false. 

Mrs.  West's  youngest  baby  is  eleven  years 
old.  Her  other  babies  are  married  and  have, 
with  her  husband,  been  taking  care  of  her. 

Most  of  her  victims  were  honest,  poor  peo- 
ple, who  wanted  to  help  her — not  a  loan  shark 
among  them.  Take  the  case  at  issue:  she 
took  the  savings  of  this  workingman — there 
was  to  be  no  interest  paid,  but  what  did  he 
get?  He  got  it  in  the  neck.  There  were  17 
chattel  mortgages  and  her  victims  would  fill 
a  city  block,  and  none  of  them  loan  sharks. 
She  received  nearly  $2,000. 

However,  Mrs.  West's  case  only  illustrates 
the  judicial  system  of  'this  city.  Mr.  Collins 
would  be  the  first  one  to  help  any  cause  that 
needs  assistance,  due  to  involuntary  poverty 
or  misfortune.  These  are  just  the  things  that 
would  receive  the  cold  glare  of  Judge  Shortall, 
Judge  Lawlor  and  Mr.  Fickert. 


19 

You  may  be  curious  to  know  what  Mr.  Col- 
lins thinks  is  the  remedy.  He  has  no  shortcut 
road  to  achieve  large  results — nothing  but  edu- 
cation can  overcome  the  ignorance  that  makes 
the  Shortalls,  the  Fickerts,  and  the  complac- 
ency of  our  Grand  Juries  possible,  and  so  he 
publishes  his  experience  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  do  something  to  help  people  arrive  at 
conclusions  that  will  make  for  civic  cleanli- 
ness and  social  justice. 


From  the  Bulletin  of  August  12,  1912. 

For  more  than  four  months  Mrs.  Margaret 
West,  35  years  old,  the  mother  of  five  chil- 
dren, has  been  languishing  in  the  county  jail 
awaiting  sentence  for  the  crime  of  having  se- 
cured, under  false  pretenses,  the  sum  of  $300 — 
money  which  was  raised  on  her  furniture,  al- 
ready mortgaged,  with  which  to  purchase  food 
and  clothing  for  her  children  and  make  a  pay- 
ment on  her  little  home. 

PREY  OF   LOAN   SHARKS. 

One  of  the  loan  sharks,  greedy  for  his  money, 
and  learning  that  Mrs.  West  had  repeatedly 
mortgaged  her  household  effects  with  various 
money  lenders,  caused  her  arrest  on  the  charge 
of  securing  money  under  false  pretenses. 
When  brought  to  trial  four  months  ago  Mrs. 
West  pleaded  guilty  to  the  charge  in  the  hope 


20 

that  she  would  be  released  on  probation,  this 
having  been  the  first  time  she  had  been  in 
trouble.  However,  Judge  Lawlor.  before  whom 
the  case  was  tried,  remanded  her  to  the  county 
jail  to  await  sentence. 

After  a  delay  of  four  months,  during  which 
time  the  children  have  been  deprived  of  a 
mother's  care,  Mrs.  West  has  been  ordered  to 
appear  before  Judge  Lawlor  on  Wednesday 
morning  at  10  o'clock  for  sentence,  and  despite 
the  efforts  of  those  who  have  interested  them- 
selves in  the  case  it  is  probable  that  the  wom- 
an will  be  given  a  prison  sentence. 

FATHER   OUT   OF   WORK. 

The  husband,  who  is  a  union  teamster,  has 
been  out  of  work  much  of  the  time  and  is  in 
poor  health,  but  he  has  an  opportunity  to  take 
his  wife  and  family  on  a  ranch  where  they 
will  be  sure  at  least  of  enough  to  eat,  and  he 
has  petitioned  Judge  Lawlor  to  place  the  wife 
and  mother  on  probation  and  give  her  another 
chance,  but  thus  far  Judge  Lawlor  has  been 
deaf  to  the  pleadings  of  the  husband  and  chil- 
dren. 

The  story  of  the  downfall  of  Mrs.  West  is 
the  old  story  of  those  who,  through  necessity, 
place  themselves  in  the  power  of  the  loan 
sharks. 

CHILDREN    DIE. 

The  West  family  lost  everything  in  the  fire 
of  1906,  and  just  as  they  were  getting  on  their 
feet  the  two  girls  were  thrown  out  of  work 


21 

when  a  general  strike  of  the  telephone  girls 
was  called.  The  father  was  also  out  of  work 
and  about  that  time  a  son  and  daughter  were 
taken  ill  and  died. 

MOTHER    DESPERATE. 

The  brave  little  mother,  driven  desperate, 
mortgaged  her  furniture  to  a  loan  shark  in 
order  to  get  food  and  clothing  for  her  children 
and  keep  up  the  payments  on  the  little  home 
which  they  were  buying.  Of  course,  she  had  to 
keep  up  the  interest  and  make  regular  pay- 
ments to  the  money  lender.  She  couldn't  dp 
it.  This  was  repeated  time  and  again,  until 
the  West  family  found  themselves  without 
furniture,  home  or  anything  else  except  a  num- 
ber of  mortgages  held  by  the  loan  sharks. 

Then  it  was  that  one  of  these  money  lenders 
caused  the  arrest  of  Mrs.  West.  The  poor 
woman  felt  that  as  this  was  her  first  offense 
against  the  law  that  if  she  pleaded  guilty  she 
would  be  released  on  probation.  She  made 
that  plea,  with  the  result  that  for  four  months 
she  has  been  in  the  county  jail  awaiting  sen- 
tence and  on  Wednesday  morning  will  prob- 
ably be  sentenced  to  a  term  in  prison. 

The  husband  and  children,  who  reside  at  53 
State  street,  grief-stricken,  are  frantically  en- 
deavoring to  persuade  Judge  Lawlor  to  be 
merciful  and  allow  the  wife  and  mother  to  go 
on  probation. 

Thus  far  Judge  Lawlor  has  shown  no  in- 
clination to  grant  the  request. 


22 

Appendix    B 

An  estimate  of  Courts,  Judges  and  Lawyers 
by  John  D.  Barry  in  the  Bulletin  of  August  11, 
1914. 

With  astonishment  most  of  us  in  this  coun- 
try, whether  familiar  or  unfamiliar  with  our 
judicial  procedure,  have  been  following  the 
details  of  the  Caillaux  trial.  From  our  point 
of  view  it  has  been  less  dramatic  than  glori- 
ously theatrical,  at  times  ridiculously  farcical. 
The  scenes  of  tumult  in  the  courtroom,  when 
the  audience  burst  into  applause  and  laughter 
and  hissing,  seem  to  us  almost  incredible. 
Such  scenes;  we  say,  and  with  truth,  could  not 
happen  in  this  country.  That  is,  they  virtually 
never  do  happen.  And  such  methods  of  secur- 
ing evidence  are  grotesque  as  compared  with 
our  careful  and  determined  rejecting  of  the 
irrelevant. 


Naturally,  we  are  inclined  to  favor  our  own 
ways,  according  to  the  law  of  nature,  even 
though  we  may  often  subject  them  to  criticism. 
Imperfect  though  they  may  be,  they  express 
us.  The  proceedings  in  that  Paris  courtroom 
express  a  people  we  consider  very  different 
from  ourselves,  more  excitable  and  emotional. 
And  yet  they  have  the  same  human  nature  and 
they  would  not  feel  flattered  if  they  were  told 
they  were  considered  by  Americans  just  as 
civilized.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  consider 
themselves  much  more  civilized.  The  actors 
in  that  trial  unquestionably  represented  a  high 


23 

state  of  civilization,  and  the  spectators,  includ- 
ing women  and  men  of  world  renown,  average 
higher  in  intelligence  than  the  typical  audi- 
once  at  one  of  our  sensational  murder  trials. 
What  then  is  the  explanation  of  their  behavior? 


It  seems  to  me  that  the  explanation  is  to  be 
found  in  traditions  which  develop  and  estab- 
lishes itself  through  imitation.  Fundamentally, 
the  French  people  are  exactly  like  the  rest  of 
us.  By  habit  they  have  become  more  expres- 
sive than  the  people  of  those  nations  that  have 
cultivated  reserve  and  self-control  the  English, 
for  example.  If  the  child  of  an  English  family, 
distinguished  even  among  the  English  for  its 
reserve,  were  brought  up  in  France  as  a  French 
child,  continually  subjected  to  French  influ- 
ences, it  would  be  likely  to  become  absolutely 
French  in  expression,  behaving  in  such  a  situ- 
ation as  that  of  the  Caillaux  trial  exactly  like 
the  other  excitables. 


As  for  the  methods  of  court  procedure  there, 
too,  is  a  growth,  a  dispaly  of  natural  feeling, 
acted  and  reacted  on  by  habit  and  by  ideals. 
The  encouragement  of  self-expression  in  France 
shows  itself  as  startlingly  in  the  chamber  of 
deputies  as  in  court.  Our  law,  so  close  to  that 
of  England,  expresess  much  of  the  English  re- 
serve. There  emotion  is  supposed  to  have  no 
place;  reason  alone  is  to  be  tolerated  operating 
in  the  name  of  justice.  One  result  is  that  our 
law  has  become  a  battle  ground  of  wits,  with 
victory  for  the  ablest  lawyers.  In  our  every- 
day talk  we  frequently  assume  that  this  big 


24 

case  or  that  will  be  decided,  not  by  justice,  but 
by  the  ability  of  the  legal  force  on  one  side, 
nearly  always  measured  in  terms  of  money. 
Moreover,  in  our  law,  all  the  lawyers  have  a 
wretched  advantage  over  the  witnesses.  With 
almost  absolute  impunity  they  can  irritate  and 
worry  and  torment  and  insult  and  intimidate. 
There  is  no  more  grotesque  and  pitiful  mock- 
ery of  justice  than  the  scenes  of  this  kind  that 
you  see  every  day  in  our  courts. 


In  France,  by  giving  more  leeway  to  wit- 
nesses, by  letting  them  get  up  and  make 
speeches,  often  examples  of  impassioned  and 
brilliant  oratory,  which,  like  so  much  oratory, 
may  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject,  the 
courts  waste  a  great  deal  of  time  and  fairly 
welter  in  irrelevance.  But  do  they  really 
waste  more  time  than  our  lawyers  do  in 
wrangling  over  what  is  relevant  and  what  is 
not?  And  do  they  not  gain  something  by  en- 
couraging these  witnesses  to  give  full  expres- 
sion of  themselves,  perhaps  betraying  qualities 
of  character  that  might  be  shown  in  no  other 
way  and  enabling  judges  and  juries  to  see 
their  problems  from  many  points  of  view? 
Give  a  liar  time  enough  and  he  will  tell  the 
truth  about  himself.  And  the  truth  is  all  the 
more  certain  to  reveal  itself  if  it  can  work 
through  freedom  of  expression. 


To  me,  what  is  most  depressing  about  a  case 
of  this  kind  is  the  exposure  of  what  men  of 
character  and  ability  will  do  for  money  and 
reputation  under  the  sanction  of  convention. 
Lawyers  being  human,  and  essentially  like 


25 

other  people,  in  spite  of  seeming  to  be  at  times 
so  different,  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  illustration 
of  the  working  of  the  forces  that  lie  behind 
custom  once  sustained,  and  now  tolerated  by 
public  opinion.  In  their  professional  capacity 
many  of  the  best  of  them  will  say  things  and 
do  things  that  they  would  be  incapable  of  in 
their  private  relations,  that  they  would  con- 
aider  revolting.  They  will  humiliate  and  scan- 
dalize and  denounce  women  with  a  boldness 
that,  in  any  place  but  a  court  of  justice,  would 
be  likely  to  lead  to  their  death.  Often  we  see 
in  courtrooms  scenes  that  seem  to  me  to  be 
far  worse  than  the  crime  the  accused  is  tried 
for.  A  lawyer  probing  into  the  salacious  and 
unnecessary  details  of  a  sex-offense,  will  often 
show  a  vile  and  a  reprehensible  spirit  far 
more  obnoxious  than  the  human  impulse  that 
prompted  the  crime. 


So,  when  we  are  tempted  to  laugh  at  the 
French  people  for  the  scenes  at  the  Caillaux 
trial  we  might  give  ourselves  pause  and  con- 
sider what  goes  on  in  our  own  courts.  Then, 
perhaps,  we  shall  get  a  new  reading  of  the  old 
text:  "The  strength  of  sin  is  the  law."  For 
all  our  brave  talk  about  justice  we  really  don't 
know  much  about  it  or  about  its  wise  adminis- 
tration. But  we  certainly  know  enough  to  see 
that  we  are  suffering  abuses  in  its  name  and 
that  we  ought  to  give  serious  thought  to  their 
correction. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFO 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


Ui 


